I have been reading Salon reviews for years. When I first began, I would get so angry with Stephanie for eviscerating some of my favorite films. Even though I didn't agree with her all the time, I loved reading her reviews as a counterpoint to my own thinking. My best friend and I used to (and still sometimes do) complain to each other about things she'd said about movies.

However, I read reviews to see what I did not see in a film. I ask myself, how else might one view this film? And there is Stephanie, ready to provide a fresh and exciting review, to open up new ways of reading. These readings would often contribute to or reshape my own, giving me a richer understanding of a film. This is priceless; this is what a critic should offer to a reader. Many of you who complaining about Stephanie's criticism don't seem to understand the job of the critic: which is to critique. Instead, many of you just want some authority figure to mirror your own views, to make you feel validated in your opinion about a film.

As far as losing Stephanie as a critic: keep dreaming. Salon is too smart for that, and the more you raise your voices, the more you validate her, and the more they'll want to keep her. She brought me to Salon and she's kept me here. While I admire and truly enjoy Andrew and Charles (my favorite critics), nobody challenges and provokes me like Stephanie. Please, Stephanie, keep aggravating and challenging us.

PS: I do not hear "screaming" or "shrieking" with "emotion" in Stephanie's reviews. Comments like these most likely just reflect your sexism.

The major complaint against Stephanie Zacharek is that she is an elitist who has contempt for a lot of the movies she reviews. Unfortunately most of the product Hollywood is trying to cram down our throats deserves our contempt. Keep it up, Stephanie. Don't let the ignorant grind you down.

If 'Jarhead' is anti-soldier, does that mean Sam Mendes and company are not *GASP* "supporting the troops?" What a gutsy thing to do these days. Sure, Mendes is not an American (and neither am I), but isn't every person on the planet subject to the same treatment of being horsewhipped on the White House lawn by some hypocritical politician if they don't boldly declare "I support the troops?" So if you don't like Mendes and his films, fear not. He'll soon find himself in a torture room somewhere, suffering greatly until he expresses his meaningless support for the American warrior. And if not, it sounds like Stephanie Zacharek will be happy to take care of him.

Some of you are really tearing Stephanie a new one. I haven't always agreed with her either, but you all need to stop taking a review so seriously. What do you care what she says? What should she care what you say? Go ahead and like what movies you like and defend them until you're hoarse. Hate other movies and rant until you're too tired to say another word. But don't demand they fire her just because she disagrees with your view. What kind of fascist crap is that? No wonder jarheads act like such psychos sometimes. They're fighting for a nation of people who think the worst thing you can do to somebody is offend them. Oh no, my feelings! You hurt them! Anything but that!

And if you agreed with everything a critic had to say about movies, what would we have to talk about in the Letters section?

For the record, I loved 'American Beauty', detested 'Road To Perdition', and feel mixed about 'Jarhead'.

I haven't read the book so I can't comment about Mendes' adaptation, and I certainly agree that the movie is a bit superficial, but even if it's a million times worse than the book, the movie wasn't so bad that it deserves this kind of uncontrolled shrieking. It wasn't like this was Birth of a Nation or Triumph of the Will or something. It was just a freakin' movie, not that profound, not much of a plot, but entertaining enough to sit still for a couple of hours. It doesn't call for personal attacks on the director.

Zacharek says "the best [Mendes] can do is file pinched, jaundiced reports from his lofty cloud." Hmmm, from reading other posts about this review, that sounds like a good description of Zacharek's approach toward film reviews. She says Mendes "can barely contain his contempt" for his characters. Kind of like she can barely contain her contempt for directors? She says that "Mendes is more interested in scoring his own points" than capturing subtle ideas. If that doesn't describe this review, I don't know what does.

Somewhere, behind all the screaming, I think Zacharek has a valid point to make about the movie, something about its failure to express a deeper level of human experience. But I think she may be using strong emotion to cover up her lack of analysis. A far more devastating critique of the movie would be to just lay out the facts, slowly build a case, and lead the reader to an inevitable conclusion. That's hard work. Screaming is easy.

. . . and Stephanie's right on the money. The movie's a total, frustrating chore. And, while I liked "American Beauty" well enough (or was it really just Spacey?), I think she's right about the overall flaccid, detached feel of Mendes's work. I'm sorry, but "Perdition" has some memorable performances, but sucks as a movie -- nothing holds it together.

I see that Zacharek, like several other critics, is strongly skepticalof Sam Mendes' work; I disagree, but a case could be made.

Unfortunately, rather than make that case, Zacharek's pious, self-righteous rant - whose core argument is undermined by her own examples and by the scenes she fails to mention, like the branding scene late in the film - flails frantically for something - anything - she can use to undermine a well-made film with more of a message than she identifies or recognizes.

Jarhead may not have lived up to her and other critic's expectations, but Zacharek's attempt to justify a unqualified thumbs down is far more specious than Mendes' filmmaking.